This chapter offers a critical examination of UK drug policy through the specific lens of drug-driving legislation, positioning it as a revealing case study in how moral and political imperatives often outweigh empirical evidence in the formation of law. It argues that, far from being guided by science or public health priorities, UK drug policy remains shaped by punitive logic, symbolic politics, and long-standing ideological narratives around drug use and criminality. The chapter begins by tracing the historical shift in British drug policy from a public health orientation to a predominantly criminal justice model. Drawing on key works such as Edwards (1989), McKeganey (2007), and Taylor (2008), it demonstrates how successive governments have responded more to moral panics than to empirical trends, with drug users repeatedly constructed as “folk devils” to justify repressive legal responses. This ideological foundation is maintained through what Monaghan (2008) terms the “new rules of engagement,” where scientific evidence is selectively employed to reinforce predetermined policy goals, rather than to inform rational debate. The chapter uses the example of Section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (amended in 2013) to explore how drug-driving legislation epitomises this trend. Despite limited evidence on its prevalence or comparative danger relative to alcohol, drug driving became a political and media priority. Drawing on the work of Wolff et al. (2013), Hasan et al. (2022), and Allsop (2020), the chapter critiques the zero-tolerance thresholds, the questionable scientific basis for per se limits, and the disproportionate focus on illicit substances, particularly cannabis and cocaine. It also examines how roadside testing technology and enforcement practices raise concerns around fairness, particularly for young and minority drivers. From an ethical standpoint, the chapter, building on Holland (2020), argues that the UK’s criminal justice approach to drug use—particularly when applied to drug driving—fails to meet principles of proportionality, care, and justice. The policy contributes to social exclusion, reinforces stigma, and does little to prevent harm. The ethical critique is bolstered by David Nutt’s (2009, 2012) work, which highlights the inconsistent application of harm assessments in drug policy and the marginalisation of scientific voices. In its final section, the chapter proposes a new policy direction grounded in evidence, ethics, and equity. It explores the potential of reformist models including harm reduction, scientific reclassification, and participatory policymaking, drawing on examples such as Portugal’s decriminalisation model. Using Stevens’ (2025) concept of “policy constellations,” it underscores the need to dismantle entrenched narratives and include lived experience in the formation of future drug laws. Ultimately, the chapter argues that drug-driving legislation is not an isolated case but a microcosm of broader failures in UK drug policy. Reform must go beyond technical fixes to address the ideological and moral underpinnings that continue to prioritise punishment over protection, and symbolism over substance.

Between Evidence, Ethics, and Enforcement

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Elizabeth Peatfield

摘要

This chapter offers a critical examination of UK drug policy through the specific lens of drug-driving legislation, positioning it as a revealing case study in how moral and political imperatives often outweigh empirical evidence in the formation of law. It argues that, far from being guided by science or public health priorities, UK drug policy remains shaped by punitive logic, symbolic politics, and long-standing ideological narratives around drug use and criminality. The chapter begins by tracing the historical shift in British drug policy from a public health orientation to a predominantly criminal justice model. Drawing on key works such as Edwards (1989), McKeganey (2007), and Taylor (2008), it demonstrates how successive governments have responded more to moral panics than to empirical trends, with drug users repeatedly constructed as “folk devils” to justify repressive legal responses. This ideological foundation is maintained through what Monaghan (2008) terms the “new rules of engagement,” where scientific evidence is selectively employed to reinforce predetermined policy goals, rather than to inform rational debate. The chapter uses the example of Section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (amended in 2013) to explore how drug-driving legislation epitomises this trend. Despite limited evidence on its prevalence or comparative danger relative to alcohol, drug driving became a political and media priority. Drawing on the work of Wolff et al. (2013), Hasan et al. (2022), and Allsop (2020), the chapter critiques the zero-tolerance thresholds, the questionable scientific basis for per se limits, and the disproportionate focus on illicit substances, particularly cannabis and cocaine. It also examines how roadside testing technology and enforcement practices raise concerns around fairness, particularly for young and minority drivers. From an ethical standpoint, the chapter, building on Holland (2020), argues that the UK’s criminal justice approach to drug use—particularly when applied to drug driving—fails to meet principles of proportionality, care, and justice. The policy contributes to social exclusion, reinforces stigma, and does little to prevent harm. The ethical critique is bolstered by David Nutt’s (2009, 2012) work, which highlights the inconsistent application of harm assessments in drug policy and the marginalisation of scientific voices. In its final section, the chapter proposes a new policy direction grounded in evidence, ethics, and equity. It explores the potential of reformist models including harm reduction, scientific reclassification, and participatory policymaking, drawing on examples such as Portugal’s decriminalisation model. Using Stevens’ (2025) concept of “policy constellations,” it underscores the need to dismantle entrenched narratives and include lived experience in the formation of future drug laws. Ultimately, the chapter argues that drug-driving legislation is not an isolated case but a microcosm of broader failures in UK drug policy. Reform must go beyond technical fixes to address the ideological and moral underpinnings that continue to prioritise punishment over protection, and symbolism over substance.